Morality clauses

[Meshavrischika]

I see. So then, you're against laws against rape?

Rape is a crime because the rights of another person are violated. The moral or ethical component of it is not what makes it a crime. This is basic law.

Theft is not a crime because it is immoral, it is a crime because it is violating property rights. Having sex out of wedlock may be immoral, but it is not a crime.

Do you see the difference?

Rape has specific parameters that must be met before it is rape. This law does not and neither does the reasoning behind it.

 

[Meshavrischika]

It seems crazy. I had never heard of it till you mentioned it.

How long is it in place for? Is it till the youngest is 18?

What about re-marriage?

Remarriage nullifies it... but to me it seems it might push someone into prematurely marrying (thus leading to possible heartache for the child again) but so could guys running in and out (I mean overnight boyfriend stay things... not just friends)

Mine is in place until I get it overturned or she's 18.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Is the morality clause in place during the divorce process or is it still in effect even after the divorce? And what is the intended purpose of the clause - is it to provide stability for the child during the process?

it was not in place until the final hearing. the intended purpose is "the best interest of the child" whatever that means.

 

[b&wpac4]

Rape has specific parameters that must be met before it is rape. This law does not and neither does the reasoning behind it.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. There are some people that believe we make laws because of morality. The truth is that we do not, or rather that laws built only upon morality are bad laws and are usually stuck down.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

It's standard language in my area. I see nothing wrong with it - the other parent has the right to have some say so about the circumstances in the home while the children are there. And the clause applies to both parents. When the children are not in residence, it's not applicable.

It is also standard here to include the following: "Neither parent shall make disparaging remarks about the other parent in the presence or hearing of the minor children."

Also becoming more common is, "Both parents will encourage the minor children's love and affection for the other parent and shall not act in a manner that is detrimental to either parent/child relationship."

 

[b&wpac4]

It's standard language in my area. I see nothing wrong with it - the other parent has the right to have some say so about the circumstances in the home while the children are there. And the clause applies to both parents. When the children are not in residence, it's not applicable.

It is also standard here to include the following: "Neither parent shall make disparaging remarks about the other parent in the presence or hearing of the minor children."

Also becoming more common is, "Both parents will encourage the minor children's love and affection for the other parent and shall not act in a manner that is detrimental to either parent/child relationship."

How exactly are those supposed to be enforced anyway? All one parent has to do is claim or have the children claim the other parent violated these things and then it's just the case of one's word vs another.

 

[Meshavrischika]

basically that's part of the problem. do you cross examine the kids every time you get them? do you hire a P.I. to stalk your ex?

 

[CCGirl]

Never heard of it before.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

It rarely comes up, enforcement-wise, unless the violating parent is actively cohabiting or has frequent sleepovers. In my area there is no time-limiting language, such as Halcy has in her Tx order. The usual language is "Neither parent will have overnight guests of the opposite sex, to whom they are not related by blood or marriage, during any period in which the children are in residence."

 

[b&wpac4]

It rarely comes up, enforcement-wise, unless the violating parent is actively cohabiting or has frequent sleepovers. In my area there is no time-limiting language, such as Halcy has in her Tx order. The usual language is "Neither parent will have overnight guests of the opposite sex, to whom they are not related by blood or marriage, during any period in which the children are in residence."

It should be done completely away with. Forcing morality though legal action is foolish at best.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Enforcement can only be brought by the "injured party"... I gues that's the ex.

 

[No Swansong]

Rape is a crime because the rights of another person are violated. The moral or ethical component of it is not what makes it a crime. This is basic law.

Theft is not a crime because it is immoral, it is a crime because it is violating property rights. Having sex out of wedlock may be immoral, but it is not a crime.

Do you see the difference?

Yeah but if you think about it the reason (presumably) that rights are rights is because those "rights" are considered moral. So it does come back to a matter of morality.

 

[Meshavrischika]

sure, but no one is prohibited from say, being a male around a female alone simply to prevent him from raping her... i.e. the crime must happen first before punishment which isn't the way morality clauses work.

 

[b&wpac4]

Yeah but if you think about it the reason (presumably) that rights are rights is because those "rights" are considered moral. So it does come back to a matter of morality.

That argument could be made, of course. I think though that those rights are supposed to be considered universal, not ascribed to one religion or philosophy or another.

 

[No Swansong]

sure, but no one is prohibited from say, being a male around a female alone simply to prevent him from raping her... i.e. the crime must happen first before punishment which isn't the way morality clauses work.

I'm not defending the morality clause I am simply pointing out that when arguing that enforcing morality is wrong, it is in itself a moral statement.

As for the morality clause I have mixed emotions. I can foresee circumstances in which they would be appropriate but do not agree that they would be appropriate all of the time. Is this something that your ex asked for, or does this particular judge apply such a clause to each case. If not, he may be in violation of equal protection clause.

 

[No Swansong]

That argument could be made, of course. I think though that those rights are supposed to be considered universal, not ascribed to one religion or philosophy or another.

Well that's why I didn't argue that they are religious but instead moral.

 

[b&wpac4]

Well that's why I didn't argue that they are religious but instead moral.

Works for me. LOL

But while rights may be moral but universal, I don't think we should try to come up with laws that force people to act moral with respect to one specific religion.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I'm not defending the morality clause I am simply pointing out that when arguing that enforcing morality is wrong, it is in itself a moral statement.

As for the morality clause I have mixed emotions. I can foresee circumstances in which they would be appropriate but do not agree that they would be appropriate all of the time. Is this something that your ex asked for, or does this particular judge apply such a clause to each case. If not, he may be in violation of equal protection clause.

all MARRIAGE cases, but not all child custody situations, which is why I reported it

 

[No Swansong]

Works for me. LOL

But while rights may be moral but universal, I don't think we should try to come up with laws that force people to act moral with respect to one specific religion.

And I firmly agree with you. Heck I have a hard enough time minding my own morality, I can't imagine worrying about someone else.

 

[No Swansong]

all MARRIAGE cases, but not all child custody situations, which is why I reported it

Wow, I wonder how he/she justifies that? It does seem to me based on the information you have given that there are definitely unresolved legal issues here.